I strongly support “science.” Scientific method, rational processes, consistent methodologies and openness to fresh perspectives to problem definition and resolution provide an underlayment of objectivity in the academic disciplines comprising math and science. Looking around me in this office, observing the aluminum cans, the ceramic mugs, the flat panel displays, the audio outputs, the bound volumes, the digital media, the printer, the router, the lamps, the primary-school pasta art hanging on the wall — it’s adhesive still strong twenty years after its creation — I think we’ve done well for ourselves as a species elaborating scientific theory and applying it.

In general I think I object to “-isms” and “-ists” of all stripes and flavors, although I have to admit to occasionally picking favorites. Ideologies are awful, and I include communism, fascism, capitalism, postmodernism, and objectivism in that blanket assertion. “Theoreticism” and “scientism” are quite obviously awful too.

(And thank you for linking to John Emerson’s piece, J. Alva.)

It’s all about hypothesis, testing, validation and not accepting anything as dogma. If you’re asking Cornell to ditch all of that in favor of ’science’ then ’science ‘might as well be faith with it’s own dogma, which adherents disprove at great cost.

Aint’ nothing wrong with theory. It’s how we got here - and we’re hardly the pinnacle of what our species will achieve.